https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130
--- Comment #9 from Tomas Kalibera ---
(In reply to Martin Storsjö from comment #8)
> (In reply to Tomas Kalibera from comment #7)
> > I sent an updated version for the trunk, 12, 11 and 10 to the gcc-patches
> > mailing list in May:
> >
> > htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #4 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > enum { A = 0x, B = 1 << 31, };
> > int main() { printf("%lx %x %zu\n", A, B, sizeof(B)); }
> >
>
> Apparently, 0x is treated by the compiler as u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #5 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #4)
> Also sizeof of that enum
> (if one gives it a name) is 8 with gcc-13. That is not allowed by the
> standard, IMO.
I'm correcting myself, this was always the case and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107407
Bug ID: 107407
Summary: Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #7 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> That is how C++ behaves for years and C2X mandates such behavior too.
> Enumerators that don't fit into int were a GNU extensions (-pedantic-errors
> rejects them)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107407
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107407
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Note there's a similar issue I sent patch for:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/f70c7a11-e81e-f6b9-a403-315117f4a...@s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107389
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|Alignment no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #4)
> Another question is why B is affected by A at all? Also sizeof of that enum
> (if one gives it a name) is 8 with gcc-13. That is not allowed by the
> standard, IM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107408
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
EDG gets it right:
"t.C", line 6: error: name followed by "::" must be a class or namespace name
template template S::S(U) { }
^
"t.C", line 6: error: argument lis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23)
> What about the large ones? Say for arbitrary size generic vectors we keep
> them in SSA form until late (generic vector lowering) and at that point
> lower,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #10 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #4)
> > Another question is why B is affected by A at all? Also sizeof of that enum
> > (if one gives it a name) is 8 with g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107047
--- Comment #3 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
and for union there's similar behavior:
union U2 {
long long f0;
unsigned short f2;
int f4;
};
void func_17(union U2 p_20);
void func_1() {
func_17(g_39[0]);
}
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107408
Bug ID: 107408
Summary: Inaccurate "error: too many template-parameter-lists"
diagnostic for missing template argument list
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107408
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang prints three errors. The first one hints at the real problem, but the
next two are bogus:
t.C:6:37: error: 'S' is not a class, namespace, or enumeration
template template S::S(U) { }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107057
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
And it looks like the pattern is wrongly defined since from [1].
--cut begin
Matching constraints are used in these circumstances. More precisely, the two
operands that match must include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107057
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
And it looks like the pattern is wrongly defined since from [1].
--cut begin
Matching constraints are used in these circumstances. More precisely, the two
operands that match must include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95148
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #11 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #10)
> Ah, that's correct. So the question then is: is it a feature we can rely on
> (even if undocumented -- can the behavior can be documented in gcc?), or we
> should dr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107404
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
Bug ID: 107409
Summary: Perf loss ~5% on 519.lbm_r SPEC cpu2017 benchmark
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107404
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107357
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e924ba3474b96a6c0b87c38cc4fca7af8d3910c
commit r13-3505-g7e924ba3474b96a6c0b87c38cc4fca7af8d3910c
Author: Ju-Zhe Zhong
Date: Tue O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106896
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shaohua.li at inf dot ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107387
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107410
Bug ID: 107410
Summary: ASan failed to detect a heap-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
Bug ID: 107411
Summary: trivial-auto-var-init=zero invalid uninitialized
variable warning
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107410
--- Comment #1 from Li Shaohua ---
Compiler explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/9aqvx71xo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107412
Bug ID: 107412
Summary: Miss to fold LEN_{LOAD,STORE} when the specified
length equal to vector length
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107412
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
Bug ID: 107413
Summary: Perf loss ~14% on 519.lbm_r SPEC cpu2017 benchmark
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #1 from Rama Malladi ---
$ /home/ubuntu/gccfixissue1/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/ubuntu/gccfixissue1/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ubuntu/gccfixissue1/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/13.0.0/lto-wrapp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #1 from Rama Malladi ---
$ /home/ubuntu/gccfixissue2/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/ubuntu/gccfixissue2/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ubuntu/gccfixissue2/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/13.0.0/lto-wrapp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107414
Bug ID: 107414
Summary: dwarf 5 C macro support
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107414
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95148
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0)
> a.cpp:5:52: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false
> [-Wtype-limits]
Both branches of the condition must be instantiated by the comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107414
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper ---
OK, I submitted:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29725
Let's see what they say.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107379
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130
--- Comment #10 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Tomas Kalibera from comment #7)
> I sent an updated version for the trunk, 12, 11 and 10 to the gcc-patches
> mailing list in May:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/594960.html
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107379
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In (untested) patch form:
--- gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc.jj2022-10-12 17:51:00.912944731 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc 2022-10-26 12:06:38.177590655 +0200
@@ -8596,6 +8596,13 @@ push_namespace (tree n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107410
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107404
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107415
Bug ID: 107415
Summary: RISCV-gcc: Leaf function compiles as recursive with
-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130
--- Comment #11 from Tomas Kalibera ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #10)
> (In reply to Tomas Kalibera from comment #7)
> > I sent an updated version for the trunk, 12, 11 and 10 to the gcc-patches
> > mailing list in May:
> >
> > https://
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107415
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meier ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Gcc can detect memset and optimize it to memset. And this is what is
> happening.
> This is documented too.
Thanks for your quick reply. I understand what is h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107397
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107416
Bug ID: 107416
Summary: A heap buffer overflow was fould in
find_section_in_set() of binutils-2.39 (commit
49c843e6)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107416
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Binutils bugzilla is located at https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107416
--- Comment #2 from bjchan9an at foxmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Binutils bugzilla is located at https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ .
Sorry, can you delete this report? We will report it to binutils bugzilla.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107416
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #16 from Sergey Fedorov ---
For Darwin, PPC intrinsics already is there in Apple headers. Can it be added
into current GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #16)
> For Darwin, PPC intrinsics already is there in Apple headers. Can it be
> added into current GCC?
There is a version of the header on the FSF Apple branch, whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107417
Bug ID: 107417
Summary: g++ fails to recognize parameter pack in
requires-expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130
Tomas Kalibera changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52007|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107418
Bug ID: 107418
Summary: lto-dump -gimple-stats Segmentation Fault
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107418
--- Comment #1 from Volker Weißmann ---
If you don't like that I enabled -flto, but disabled the optimizer, tell me,
then I minify another example that triggers the same segfault, even if -Os is
given.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #16)
> For Darwin, PPC intrinsics already is there in Apple headers. Can it be
> added into current GCC?
If it is in the Apple headers already, why would you ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107353
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexander Monakov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82e629c26647313be406c41a01e6868cfad0f289
commit r13-3509-g82e629c26647313be406c41a01e6868cfad0f289
Author: Alexander Monakov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107417
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106433
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
JFTR, I believe I can reproduce the same issue on x86_64 w/ the current gcc
13.0.0 20221023 (g:0e37fd4dc74c1db99cdc7d71ef378e1221253c6f) snapshot:
int m;
int *p;
__attribute__ ((simd)) int
bar (int x)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107419
Bug ID: 107419
Summary: attributes are ignored when selecting TLS model
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107420
Bug ID: 107420
Summary: [13 regression] ICE when building trunk with ieee128
after r13-3307-g8efc38347a7444
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|enums can be wrongly long |[13 Regression] enum change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107420
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107421
Bug ID: 107421
Summary: problematic interaction of 'common' and
'threadprivate'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.0|12.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107353
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 regression] Numerous|frontends sometimes select
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.meier at hexagon dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97684
Torbjörn SVENSSON changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torbjorn.svensson at foss dot
st.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 26 Oct 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> Seems LLVM currently only supports _BitInt up to 128, which is kind of useless
> for users, those sizes can be easily ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If the real issue in a particular place in the kernel is that a single
(anonymous) enum type is being used for lots of different kinds of
constants, then the appropriate fix in the kernel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107420
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Can this be reproduced on a cross? Could you provide a preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107420
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107299
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 107420 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> Well, a boz is typeless, so it cannot be compatible with any other type.
> So, I would assume, you could do
>
> if (ts1->type == BT_BOZ || ts2->type == BT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107422
Bug ID: 107422
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in lvalue_kind, at
cp/tree.cc:293
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107423
Bug ID: 107423
Summary: ICE in parse_spec, at fortran/parse.cc:4017
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107424
Bug ID: 107424
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_do, at
fortran/trans-openmp.cc:5397
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107425
Bug ID: 107425
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl,
at gimplify.cc:3060
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426
Bug ID: 107426
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_derived_types,
at fortran/interface.cc:636
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106703
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Looks like a dup of 107366; possibly fixed by
r13-3469-g2e8a0553918adc919f98ac5c0224fc6ce1fef68d.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #3 from Rama Malladi ---
I will get the effect of this revert for the overall SPEC FP score. I haven't
tried experimenting with fp_reassoc_width values. Will try it and update.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:24:04PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
>
> --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107417
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95148
--- Comment #4 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > I should not be getting this warning, because when x is unsigned, the
> > comparison is never performed, due to the short-circuit semantics of `and`.
>
> T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106393
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2249cd9adf5ae638577139177a50f7e62d8abd9
commit r13-3511-gd2249cd9adf5ae638577139177a50f7e62d8abd9
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106393
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 53779
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53779&action=edit
introduce ppc_intrinsics.h for powerpc*-darwin.
This takes the header from the GCC-4.x apple debt branch (as pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107422
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-26
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #12)
> > pr103413-boz.f90:4:6:
> >
> > 4 | r = z'1234'
> > | 1
> > Error: BOZ literal constant at (1) is neither a DATA statement value nor
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
